Appraisal, coping, health status, and psychological symptoms
Abstract
In this study we examined the relation between personality factors (mastery and interpersonal trust), primary appraisal (the stakes a person has in a stressful encounter), secondary appraisal (options for coping), eight forms of problem- and emotion-focused coping, and somatic health status and psychological symptoms in a sample of 150 community-residing adults. Appraisal and coping processes should be characterized by a moderate degree of stability across stressful encounters for them to have an effect on somatic health status and psychological symptoms. These processes were assessed in five different stressful situations that subjects experienced in their day-to-day lives. Certain processes (e.g., secondary appraisal) were highly variable, whereas others (e.g., emotion-focused forms of coping) were moderately stable. We entered mastery and interpersonal trust, and primary appraisal and coping variables (aggregated over five occasions), into regression analyses of somatic health status and psychological symptoms. The variables did not explain a significant amount of the variance in somatic health status, but they did explain a significant amount of the variance in psychological symptoms. The pattern of relations indicated that certain variables were positively associated and others negatively associated with symptoms.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Emotionally avoidant and controlling coping strategies are more likely to be applied rigidly, independent of the current context.
“For example, emotionally avoidant and controlling coping strategies are more likely to be applied rigidly, independent of the current context (Folkman, Lazarus, Gruen, & DeLongis, 1986).”
From Acceptance and Commitment Therapy and Contextual Behavioral Science: Examining the Progress of a Distinctive Model of Behavioral and Cognitive Therapy (2013) · cites this paper as Folkman, Lazarus, Gruen, & DeLongis, 1986
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 47 · Cited by 2,917
- Authors
- Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Gruen, R. J., & DeLongis, A.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Berkeley (US)
- ORCID
- DeLongis, Anita
- Venue
- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
- Published
- 1986
- Volume
- 50
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 571-579
- ISSN
- 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1315
- OpenAlex
- W2097529337
- Cited by
- 2,917
- References
- 47
- Citations by year
- 2026: 89 · 2025: 125 · 2024: 133 · 2023: 156 · 2022: 139 · 2021: 171 · 2020: 122 · 2019: 132 · 2018: 92 · 2017: 92 · 2016: 81 · 2015: 121 · 2014: 106 · 2013: 101 · 2012: 97
- FWCI
- 34.10
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Resilience and Mental Health
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Optimism, Hope, and Well-being
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
- Keywords
- primary appraisal, secondary appraisal, coping, mastery, interpersonal trust, problem-focused coping, emotion-focused coping, psychological symptoms, stress, personality factors
- MeSH terms
- Adaptation, Psychological, Adjustment Disorders, Adult, Female, Humans, Life Change Events, Male, Middle Aged, Personality Tests, Psychometrics, Somatoform Disorders
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review